On fascism
Fascism comes from the attempt of imperialists and the Indian ruling classes to overcome critical challenges they face in the political and economical spheres. The explicit Brahmanism emerges from the particular legitimacy crisis of the Indian state. Its aggressive stance comes from the fascistic nature of the RSS. All are no doubt interconnected. That is why it is correct and necessary to speak of Brahmanic Hindutva fascism.
Recently the Comintern’s views on fascism and tactics to resist it have come under criticism from proponents of the ‘three way fight’. The State/ruling class, extreme rightist movements of which fascism is a part and people’s movements — these are the ‘three’ indicated by this view.
What did Georgi Dimitrov, the Comintern leader, say? “ The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succession of one bourgeois government by another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie — bourgeois democracy — by another form — open terrorist dictatorship.”¹
The Executive Committee of the Communist International noted that fascism in power (is) “…the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.”²
Dimitrov and the EC were speaking about fascism in power and its relation to a faction of the big bourgeoisie in imperialist countries, not about fascist movements. Hence the ‘Three way fight’ thesis’ criticism of those positions arguing that fascist movements are not ‘commanded’ by big bourgeoisie is besides the point.³
Moreover, though fascist movements are often opposed to the existing political setup and ruling class parties in their initial period, sooner or later they get the support of a section of finance capital and state machinery. They thrive and grow with such support. Mussolini was aided by British imperialism. Arguments about ‘relative autonomy’ of such movements tend to ignore or underplay this.
According to ‘Three way fight’ thesis: “…far-right movements, of which fascism is one tendency, are not merely shock-troopers of the most reactionary capitalists…they may collaborate with police or find common cause with some factions of capital. But they are system-oppositional forms of organising.” They challenge the status quo.⁴
In their period of formation and growth, fascist movements may challenge ruling class parties or clash with the state machinery. But that doesn’t make them system-oppositional. They never challenge State power, nor oppose the capitalist system or bourgeois rule. The three way fight thesis ignores, and thus covers up, the qualitative differences of the contradictions between the three poles, i.e., the ruling class/State, fascist movements and peoples’ movements. The contradiction between the former two can become antagonistic at times, but, essentially, it is non-antagonistic. Which is also why using the term system-oppositional to describe fascist movements is wrong. The contradiction between peoples’ movements and the other two is basically antagonistic, though it may become non-antagonistic with some sections among them, in some specific situations.
Pointing to the mixed class composition of fascist movements, the ‘three way fight’ thesis argues that fascism does not have an unequivocal class character. This fails to distinguish between class composition and class character. “The question of the class character of fascism must not be confused with the question of the class composition of the fascist mass movement. …the class composition of this movement is very mixed. The decisive thing is: what class policy does it pursue? Which class does it serve?” (From Kussinen’s Report to 13th Plenum of Comintern EC)⁵
The ‘Three way fight’ thesis argues that Dimitrov, drew a clear line between ordinary bourgeois governance and fascist State power. Hence the popular front line permitted communist parties to ally with non-revolutionary organisations as an emergency measure to prevent the rise of fascist states. The implication is that this promoted revisionism.
This poses two questions:
1) Is there any clear distinction between ordinary bourgeois governance and fascist governance?
Yes, there is. In the normal functioning of bourgeois democracy the violence of the State is veiled. When summoned into action it is presented as an exceptional step called for by exceptional conditions; by a situation where the so-called ‘rule of law’ has been upset. Fascism subverts this notion. The exceptional is now made out as the common place. This then become the justification for continuous, open, state violence and the suppression of democratic rights. Not just state violence, the violence of fascist mobs against the ‘others’ too is legitimised as the new normal of social existence. A ‘rigid concept of life’ is made explicit as unbending norms of social behaviour and political life. All diversities get branded as defilement of an assumed ‘national ideal’. All dissent is stamped as treachery.
2) Does the move to a fascist rule lead to any new political situation? Will it provide new opportunities for the proletarian party?
Yes, it does. Parliamentary illusions of a large section of the masses get dispelled. Even ruling class parties and some sections of the State machinery become willing to cooperate, even if indirectly, with the Communist Party. The possibility of formal or informal front activity emerges at a broader level. As Kusinnen pointed out, “…revolutionary development is simultaneously hindered and accelerated by the fascist fury of the bourgeoisie.”⁶
The masses in imperialist countries definitely do suffer from suppressive State measures even under conditions of bourgeois democracy. But the suspension of electoral democracy and constitutionally assured rights, accompanied by the blatant suppression of democratic rights will stand out as a distinct event. Refusing to acknowledge this means loosing a tactical opportunity. It would be a ‘left’ opportunist error.
Comintern’s discussion and thesis on fascism and united front were focused on imperialist countries, where the opportunity for a revolutionary seizure of political power is not always present. The question of whether the anti-fascist struggle would lead to a revolution or not depended on many objective factors. In those days, electoral struggle was a widely applied tactics in imperialist countries. Hence the guidance to parties in that type of countries to take up Popular Front tactics in the electoral front in order to prevent fascist parties from coming to power.
But did the Comintern insist on forming such fronts as the necessary way to seize power? NO.
(It is ) “wrong to imagine that the united front government is an indispensable stage on the road to the establishment of proletarian dictatorship. Just as wrong as the view that fascist dictatorship is certain to be immediately superseded by proletarian dictatorship. Will the proletariat itself be prepared at the decisive moment for the direct overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of its own power? Or will the movement of the proletariat and the anti-fascist Popular Front at that particular stage be in a position only to suppress or overthrow fascism, without directly proceeding to abolish the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?”⁷
The modern ruling classes of the oppressed countries quite often internalise elements of fascist ideology. It is blended with the autocratic, ‘rule by edict’ system of rule, commonly seen in the past under feudal regimes all over the world. This stems from persisting semi-feudal socio-economic and cultural relations seen in the Third world. As a result, even when forms of bourgeois rule like the parliamentary system exist, they are inherently flawed.
The seamless makeover from modern forms of bourgeoisie governance to feudal autocratic ones is a permanent feature in this type of countries. However, it manifests differently. In the urban centres, and particularly for the middle classes and upper classes, ‘the rule of law’ is the norm, mostly. But in the rural areas, and especially for those at the bottom most levels of society, law is given by the local oppressors. They are ably assisted by modern instruments of ‘lawful government’, like the police and local bodies like the panchayats. More often than not, their raw violence with all of its reactionary inhumaneness, is a permanent presence. It usually becomes the determining factor.
But in these type of countries too fascist moves towards suppression of democratic rights inevitably summons up broad mass resistance. This is a reflection of the growth of democratic awareness among the masses. It is an outcome of their own struggles as well as the awareness they have gained through the wider global flow of information. Therefore, though qualitatively different from those in imperialist countries, the possibility of forming broad fronts against fascicisation comes up in these type of countries too. This must be actively taken up in diverse fields, focusing on defending and expanding democratic rights of the people. These rights were won on the streets and they will have to be primarily defended on the streets. An outright fascist rule will put severe limits on these activities. But it will also open up new channels.
Let us now come to the specificities of the fascist threat we face in India. To do that we must first dispel with wrong notions about it. One such notion is that of ‘neofascism’ put forward by the CPI(M-L)Red Star. They claim that this is “ fascism under neoliberalism where old terms and practices connected with fascism have become irrelevant.” Yet there is no explanation about the new features of fascism or new tactics to be adopted. It says, “…neofascism propped up by the most reactionary, far-right sections of corporate capital, unlike the case of ‘classical fascism’ which was confined to Europe during the colonial period, has become transnational (cutting across both imperialist and neocolonially dependent Asian-African-Latin American countries) in tune with globalisation or internationalisation of capital and worldwide super-exploitation of the working class…”⁸
Is fascism in oppressed countries something seen only under neocolonial conditions? During the rise of fascism in the inter-war period in the imperialist countries almost all the Third world countries were colonies. There was no question of any faction of the local big bourgeoisie adopting a form of rule other than the one imposed by the colonial power. In semi-colonies this was possible. And fascism as a form of rule did emerge in some of them.The Blue Shirts Society, a fascist paramilitary organisation within the Koumintang, was part of the State. It modeled itself after Mussolini’s blackshirts. The New State established in Brazil by Getúlio Vargas (1937–1945) was another example. Moreover, the linkage made between globalisation and fascism in Third World countries by the Red Star is simplistic. How does this account for the fascist dictatorships that came up in the pre-globalisation period?
The fascism presently being promoted in India by the Sangh Parivar through the Modi government is an outgrowth of the reactionary foundations on which the Indian parliamentary system rests. By reactionary foundations I mean persisting semi-feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism unique to all oppressed countries. But that is not all. It also represents a further step in the ruling classes’ project to tackle and overcome the long-standing legitimacy crisis they have been facing for decades. Under the Sangh Parivar dispensation it has acquired a distinct aggressive hue and doubly venomous content. This makes it appropriate to name it Brahmanic Hindutva fascism.
Are we on the way to a Hindu Rashtra, as projected by the RSS? The answer to that lies in what we understand by this Hindu Rashtra. If it is considered to become real only when a formal, constitutional, declaration is made, then that is yet to come. But otherwise, it is already here. A de facto Hindu Rashtra is already here. It is the present, not the future.
Dictatorship in politics, service of imperialist and local corporate companies in economy, Hindutva hegemony in society, caste and patriarchal hegemony in culture — this is the nature of Modi’s RSS-BJP Central government. Sanatana Dharma (Manuvad) is its weapon. Establishment of Hindu Rashtra is its objective.
Fascism comes from the attempt of imperialists and the Indian ruling classes to overcome critical challenges they face in the political and economical spheres. The explicit Brahmanism emerges from the particular legitimacy crisis of the Indian state. Its aggressive stance comes from the fascistic nature of the RSS. All are no doubt interconnected. That is why it is correct and necessary to speak of Brahmanic Hindutva fascism. But at the same time we must also note that they emerge from distinctly different sources. This implies that the resistance must be multi-pronged.
Challenging the unitary identity that Brahmanic Hindutva fascism insists on with the actually existing manifold identities, undermining its singular narrative by bringing out and embellishing the democratic content of the many narratives of beliefs and mythologies thriving among the peoples, demolishing its pretensions of patriotism with the truth of its sell-out of the country and the predatory nature of foreign capital and, above all, presenting and promoting the vision of a society where liberty, democracy and equality can truly flourish and create the grounds for future leaps, this hideous threat can be confronted and defeated.
Notes
[1]https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm#s5
[2] https://washingtonareaspark.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1934-13th-plenum001.pdf
[4] Ibid.
[5] https://stars.library.ucf.edu/prism/171/)
[6] https://washingtonareaspark.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1934-13th-plenum001.pdf
[7]https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/unity.htm#s5
(Notes for an online talk organised by bsCEM, Delhi. An earlier version can be seen at https://materialjournal.net/response1/. A video presentation of this text with voice over in Malayalam is available at https://youtu.be/fyEDcFvBCr0 and https://www.instagram.com/p/C9FU9SQuGLs/)